Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Charlie Day’

Someone has rescheduled the apocalypse! Although, of course, in this as everything else, getting the timing right is crucial. Take sequels, for instance: just what is the optimum time to release a follow-up to a movie? Conventional wisdom seems to be that a gap of two to three years is best. Much less than that, and you start to risk possible audience fatigue – it seems to me that the imminently forthcoming singleton stellar conflict movie is the subject of rather less febrile anticipation than one might expect, which may be because it’s been less than six months since the last one (although the mixed response to last year’s offering may also be an issue). Leave it too long, on the other hand, and you run the risk of audiences (or even the film-makers) forgetting the original movie entirely, which seems to me to be a very real issue that the four – yes, you read that right – planned Avatar sequels will have to deal with (we’re still well over two years away from the first of these coming out).

It’s nearly five years since the release of Guillermo del Toro’s Pacific Rim, a film which was reasonably well-reviewed – partly, I suspect, because del Toro is the kind of well-liked director whom critics occasionally indulge – but which didn’t exactly make a humungous pile of dough at the time. Nevertheless, possibly because the first film was particularly successful in the important Asian market (hardly surprising, given the whole thing was a love-letter to certain aspects of Japanese pop culture), a sequel has finally clanked into view: Pacific Rim: Uprising, directed by Steven S. DeKnight.

The film is set ten years after the original, and focuses mainly on Jake Pentecost (John Boyega), son of one of the characters from first time round. As things get underway, Jake is a bit of a rascal, making a living as a wheeler-dealer in giant robot parts in the lawless areas left devastated by giant monster attacks (the giant robots are also known as jaegers, as I’m sure you recall). However, he and his young friend Amara (Cailee Spaeny) are eventually nabbed by the cops and his foster sister Mako (Rinko Kikuchi) offers him a stark choice: come back to the giant robot defence programme to help train new pilots, or go to prison. Back to the giant robot defence programme it is, then.

There is inevitably some sparring between Jake and his co-pilot Lambert (Scott Eastwood), and tension between Amara and the other trainees, but then it looks like the current generation of machines will all be decommissioned soon anyway – a Chinese megacorporation is set to unveil a new series of remote-controlled jaegers, although there are still some doubts about this new idea. Soon everyone has bigger worries, however, as a defence council meeting is disrupted by a devastating attack from an unidentified rogue jaeger. But who is behind this new threat, and what is their ultimate objective?

Now, it has to be said that Pacific Rim: Uprising is a movie which an uncharitable person might suggest comes with a couple of strikes against it before we even get to the story. Quite apart from the fact it’s taken its time arriving, there is that title, which is perhaps more redolent of a gastric complaint than an all-action sci-fi adventure (‘Darling, I hate to say this but I seem to be having a bit of an uprising in my pacific rim’ – ‘Oh dear, I knew there was something funny about that quinoa that came with our avocado toast’), and also the fact that this is one of those sequels where nearly all the key personnel from the first movie have moved on: Charlie Hunnam couldn’t participate, due to his being busy with that bonkers King Arthur movie, Rinko Kikuchi’s appearance is very brief, Idris Elba does not show up at all (although, to be fair, he was vaporised at the end of the first film), and del Toro limits himself to producing and being a ‘visual consultant’, presumably because he was busy with his fishy romance while this film was in production. Pretty much the only folk carrying on as before are Burn Gorman and Charlie Day as the comedy boffins.

In the place of the departed people, we get DeKnight, whose first movie this is as director, and Boyega and Eastwood, two actors really best known for playing sidekicks in other, more successful franchises. There are also a bunch of young actors playing jaeger-pilot cadets, whose presence really makes it clear that this film is aimed much more at a YA audience than the first one. So you could be excused for expecting the worst.

However, and I am rather surprised to find myself typing these words, Pacific Rim: Uprising is actually a huge heap of fun, and manages to be one of those rare movies which actually gets better as it goes on. Initially there is a lot of stuff with people talking about drones, and John Boyega cracking wise (I would venture to suggest that I do not think John Boyega is as cool or funny as John Boyega thinks he is, but then I’m not producing the movie), and some slightly sub-Ender’s Game stuff with the young cadets, but then the giant robots start bashing lumps out of each other in downtown Sydney and you suddenly remember what this movie is about.

You don’t come to Pacific Rim: Uprising for finely-observed characterisation, intense method acting, innovative plotting, or even a story which even makes total sense. You come to this movie for lengthy sequences of enormous robots, monsters, and robot-monster cyborgs repeatedly dinging each other about the head with huge chunks of the nearest skyscraper, and the new movie delivers this in spades. The various battle sequences are at least as good as the ones in the first film, and – rather gloriously – DeKnight breaks with prevailing western film-making dogma and stages most of them in daylight. As a result the whole film looks and feels much more like a traditional Japanese tokusatsu movie, which is surely the point. (The makers of the next couple of American Godzilla movies could learn a lot from this film.)

Set against this, the possible deficiencies in the acting and story department seem to matter a lot less than would otherwise be the case. Most of the acting in this movie consists of running on a treadmill in a plastic Buck Rogers suit while shouting things like ‘Activate plasma wrecking ball!’, anyway. Honourable exceptions go to Day and Gorman, who chew upon the scenery with gusto, and Eastwood, who has enough of his old man’s presence to make an impression in an underwritten part.

On the other hand, there were good things in the first film which just aren’t present here: the sense of a wider world, which has adapted in all kinds of odd ways to the reality of kaiju attacks, is largely missing, and that essential vein of weirdness running through everything del Toro creates is mostly gone as well – although there’s one scene concerned with a character’s personal life that makes The Shape of Water look like a relatively conventional romance, the only moment that really feels like one del Toro had a hand in.

Nevertheless, as pure popcorn blockbusters go, this does what it says on the tin, without feeling crassly formulaic or insulting the intelligence of the audience too much. It manages a decent plot twist at one point, and also manages to do that thing where there’s a major Chinese character (thus allowing them to sell the movie over there) without it seeming especially obvious. Does the plot completely hang together? Well, no, but I’m inclined to cut the film some slack, mainly because it is such pure, inoffensive fun. Many American films have dabbled with ideas and themes from Japanese fantasy films before, with varying degrees of success: Pacific Rim: Uprising is the most successful attempt yet at recreating the energy, colour and simple joy of tokusatsu movies and TV in a western movie, and I hope it meets with the success it deserves.

Read Full Post »

So, I found myself once again in the position of having seen virtually everything on at the sweetshop and coffeeshop, and with the Phoenix shut for refurbishment again, the situation demanded I look into reaches of the schedule I am not usually wont to visit. This left me with the options of Nativity 3: Dude, Where’s My Donkey?, Paddington Bear: The Movie, and Horrible Bosses 2. I’ll admit that the final decision was not entirely mine alone, but you don’t want to read about a lot of wrangling over what to see. You want to read a review of Horrible Bosses 2. At least, I hope you do. If not, you may as well be on your way, for that is the business of the day.

Horrible_Bosses_2

Now, I must confess that I did consider going to see the original Horrible Bosses in 2011, but some sixth sense told me my time might be better spent elsewhere (which may explain the rash of golden-oldie Planet of the Apes reviews around the time the first film came out). However, I was assured that – if this one was anything like its predecessor – a knowledge of the plot would not be required for full appreciation of its nuances.

Anyway, as Sean Anders’ film opens, we are introduced to Nick (Jason Bateman), Kurt (Jason Sudeikis), and Dale (Charlie Dale), three guys who are trying to make it as entrepreneurs and appearing on TV to promote their latest idea for a shower fitting. (It eventually transpires that Kurt is a softly-spoken moron, Charlie is a very noisy moron, and Nick, though not a moron, inevitably seems to find himself dragged along in the wake of the other two.) The opening sequence of the film does a pretty good job of establishing the tone of proceedings, in that its comic credentials are based on some infelicitious camera angles appearing to show Dale giving manual relief to and fellating Kurt, and the fact that their company name, when spoken too quickly, sounds like a racial slur.

While I was coming to the conclusion that this was not exactly going to be Bringing Up Baby, the plot progressed, with the trio going into business with the wealthy and ruthless Hanson family, personified by Burt (Christoph Waltz) and his son Rex (Chris Pine). It comes as no surprise when the Hansons make the the most of the fact the main characters are, well, morons, viciously exploiting them and leaving them horribly in debt, with only a short time to raise $500,000 or lose their company.

So what are a trio of morons going to do in such dire straits? Are they going to seek legal advice? No, of course not. Are they going to try and find a new business partner or backer to help them with their financial woes? No. Are they going to engage in a frankly stupid scheme to kidnap Rex Hanson and ransom him back to his father for the money they need? Well, obviously. There are a few scenes where Jennifer Aniston turns up as a sex-addicted dentist, but, you know, they’re not exactly central.

Anyway, the other day I was reading an article where a bunch of professional writers chose the expressions they would like to see deleted from the lexicon – one chose ‘Mary Sue’, another went for ‘info dump’, and so on, on the grounds they had become debased or lost any essential meaning. (I couldn’t help smelling a rat – I suspect some of them might have wanted to get rid of the expression ‘this is a bad book’, to stop that from appearing in reviews as well.) One of the choices was the term ‘idiot plot’, which is shorthand for any story which only works if all the main characters behave like unreasonable idiots.

Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, whatever you think of Mary Sue or info dump, I am absolutely certain that idiot plot retains some critical value, and the proof of that is the existence of a film like Horrible Bosses 2. If any of the main characters acted remotely like an actual human being the story would never take place. But the story has to happen and so they blunder and bumble on in a wholly incredible way.

I have to say, however, that I’m not entirely averse to a bit of absurd slapstick, provided it’s genuinely funny, and my problems with Horrible Bosses 2 don’t really arise from the fact that the story is so silly. ‘Silly’ isn’t entirely fair, to be honest: the plot itself is actually fairly inventive in some ways, and not quite as simplistic as you might expect. My main problem is that the tone of the thing is so – and how do I put this without coming over all Mary Whitehouse? – adolescent.

The kind of jokes featuring in the opening scene continue throughout the film, which also features wall-to-wall profanity, various glib jokes about rape, a little mild racial abuse, the objectification of women, and so on. None of this is really my thing, I will admit, and it may just be that I’m a failing old man who’s lost his sense of humour. However, from various reviews I’ve read of other modern American comedy films, I get the impression that this has become de rigeur for the form: there seems to be the belief that audiences just aren’t interested in going to see a funny film unless half the jokes are explicitly sexual and it has a three-figure F-bomb count.

Is this really the case? I’m not sure. Certainly, in the case of Horrible Bosses 2, I thought I could discern a fast, slick, and very silly comedy-thriller choking to death under the onslaught of ‘adult’ humour. I did eventually laugh at this film, despite attempting not to on principle: it was at a joke about someone using an indelible marker on a whiteboard, something I can empathise with myself (hey, that’s my kind of humour). Also, Jason Bateman does give a genuinely funny deadpan performance as someone who knows that he should know better.

I did still find this a rather baffling experience, however, partly because – despite everything – I cannot find it in my heart to come out and say that Horrible Bosses 2 is an outright bad movie. The makers clearly had a specific objective in mind – a very crude, very silly comedy, with its profile raised by the presence of some big name actors – and this is indeed what they’ve ended up with. (Kevin Spacey amiably chews the scenery in his tiny cameo, but it rather seems to me that Jamie Foxx’s gangster is essentially a one-joke character.) I’m just not sure why they would choose to make this particular film, when there is plenty of evidence on display that they are capable of making something cleverer and much more accessible to a less juvenile audience.

In the end, however, I have to stick to talking about the film they made, not the ones they could have made. And the film that they made is more dismaying than anything approaching hilarious, not least because everyone involved is clearly capable of so much better.

Read Full Post »